1. Results of aResults of a
Longitudinal Survey:Longitudinal Survey:
Status of State-LevelStatus of State-Level
Comprehensive EE ProgramsComprehensive EE Programs
34th
Annual NAAEE Conference
Albuquerque, New Mexico
October 2005
3. Project SponsorsProject Sponsors
U.S. EPA Office of EEU.S. EPA Office of EE
EE and Training PartnershipEE and Training Partnership
National EE Advancement ProjectNational EE Advancement Project
4. Session OutlineSession Outline
• Project BackgroundProject Background
• Highlights: 1995, 1998 and 2004 SurveysHighlights: 1995, 1998 and 2004 Surveys
• Methodology for 2004 SurveyMethodology for 2004 Survey
• Project ResultsProject Results
• Conclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and Recommendations
5. Components of a Comprehensive EE ProgramComponents of a Comprehensive EE Program
9. Survey DesignSurvey Design
2004 survey includes “artifacts” column2004 survey includes “artifacts” column
30 quantitative questions, 14 with sub-items30 quantitative questions, 14 with sub-items
Detailed descriptions of componentsDetailed descriptions of components
3 open-ended questions3 open-ended questions
Online services by NAAEE TechnologyOnline services by NAAEE Technology
Services (NTS)Services (NTS)
Survey data sorting by NTS and NEEAPSurvey data sorting by NTS and NEEAP
10. Survey DesignSurvey Design
PopulationPopulation
NAAEE AffiliatesNAAEE Affiliates
State agency EE SpecialistsState agency EE Specialists
PLT, WET and WILD coordinatorsPLT, WET and WILD coordinators
ProcessProcess
348 EE leaders contacted. 82 responded.348 EE leaders contacted. 82 responded.
16 states re-contacted for coordinated16 states re-contacted for coordinated
responsesresponses
14. 0
2
4
6
8
10
Science SS Math LA Art Econ Health
EE Learner Objectives/Outcomes in 23 StatesEE Learner Objectives/Outcomes in 23 States
Subject AreasSubject Areas
10
4 4
1 1
2
10
16. 0
10
20
30
40
50
PLT WET WILD Other
34
25
32
50
EE Correlations in 37 StatesEE Correlations in 37 States
Curriculum ProgramsCurriculum Programs
Other Programs: Leopold Education Project, K-12 Energy Education
Program, Food-Land-People, Nature Mapping and 43 state specific programs
17. 3 4 3
15
30
18
25
32
21
27
10
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
Required EE
Training for
Teacher
Candidates
Coordinated
Inservice EE
Training
Train-the-
trainers of K-
12
Educators
Train-the-
trainers of
Nonformal
Educators
Train-the-
trainers of
University
Faculty
1995 1998 2004
Educator Training Program Components
19. Assessment and RecognitionAssessment and Recognition
Program ComponentsProgram Components
3
19
12
36
28
4
6
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
State Assessment that
Includes EE
EE
Awards/Recognition
Environmental
Literacy Assessment
EE Certification
1995 1998 2004
20. 12
3
6
4
28
1
9
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
State Assessment
that Includes EE
Environmental
Literacy Assessment
EE
Awards/Recognition
Certification
In Place Being Developed
Certification, Assessment and RecognitionCertification, Assessment and Recognition
Program ComponentsProgram Components
23. 31%
25%
25%
6%
13% Department of Education
Department of Natural Resource
Department of Environmental
Protection
Governor's Office
Other
EE Offices in 17 StatesEE Offices in 17 States
Full Time Employees=75Full Time Employees=75
Part Time Employees=16Part Time Employees=16
30. Not In Place
29
In Place
19
Being
Developed
2
In Place Being Developed Not In Place
EE LegislationEE Legislation
31. What resources and/or services have beenWhat resources and/or services have been
particularly helpful in supporting theparticularly helpful in supporting the
development of the components ofdevelopment of the components of
comprehensive EE programs in your state?comprehensive EE programs in your state?
What national and/or regional organizations andWhat national and/or regional organizations and
agencies have provided needed support?agencies have provided needed support?
Open-ended Questions #1-2Open-ended Questions #1-2
32. Funding fromFunding from outsideoutside of the stateof the state
U.S. EPA Office of EEU.S. EPA Office of EE
EETAP partners conduitsEETAP partners conduits
U.S. EPA Regional OfficesU.S. EPA Regional Offices
OnlyOnly one stateone state mentioned in-state sourcementioned in-state source
Four states listed other outside sourcesFour states listed other outside sources
including corporate, foundation, and otherincluding corporate, foundation, and other
federal agenciesfederal agencies
Responses to Open-ended QuestionsResponses to Open-ended Questions
$$$$$$
33. NAAEE (27 states)NAAEE (27 states)
Guidelines publications and training-8 statesGuidelines publications and training-8 states
Annual conference (affiliates workshop)-7 statesAnnual conference (affiliates workshop)-7 states
NEEAP (20 states)NEEAP (20 states)
State CB programs and services-15 statesState CB programs and services-15 states
Leadership Clinics - 22 statesLeadership Clinics - 22 states
EETAP (15 states)EETAP (15 states)
State Capacity Building programs-11 statesState Capacity Building programs-11 states
Certification- 3 statesCertification- 3 states
Responses to Open-ended QuestionsResponses to Open-ended Questions
National Programs-Top ThreeNational Programs-Top Three
34. EPA OEE (17 states) and Regional Offices (13 states)EPA OEE (17 states) and Regional Offices (13 states)
Project WET (7 states), WILD (6 states), PLT (6 states)Project WET (7 states), WILD (6 states), PLT (6 states)
State Education and Environment RoundtableState Education and Environment Roundtable
(4 states)(4 states)
US Fish and Wildlife Service (3 states)US Fish and Wildlife Service (3 states)
Several other organizations and agencies listed by 1-2Several other organizations and agencies listed by 1-2
statesstates
Responses to Open-ended QuestionsResponses to Open-ended Questions
National Programs, continuedNational Programs, continued
35. Staff/programs and committed directors in stateStaff/programs and committed directors in state
agencies (14)agencies (14)
State EE associations (13)State EE associations (13)
EE and nature centers (8)EE and nature centers (8)
Corporations and foundations (9)Corporations and foundations (9)
Universities and colleges (3)Universities and colleges (3)
Museums, aquaria, zoos (1)Museums, aquaria, zoos (1)
Responses to Open-ended QuestionsResponses to Open-ended Questions
State-Level SupportState-Level Support
36. Three recommendations related to improvingThree recommendations related to improving
future surveys of the status of comprehensivefuture surveys of the status of comprehensive
EE programs.EE programs.
Nine recommendations for increasing state-levelNine recommendations for increasing state-level
EE capacity and achieving comprehensive EEEE capacity and achieving comprehensive EE
programs.programs.
RecommendationsRecommendations
37. Recommendations Related to Survey
1. Conduct the survey of state comprehensive1. Conduct the survey of state comprehensive
EE programs every 3 years.EE programs every 3 years.
2. Follow-up with state EE leaders where “artifact”2. Follow-up with state EE leaders where “artifact”
information is missing or unclear.information is missing or unclear.
3.3. Make results availableMake results available
through websites, articlesthrough websites, articles
and other promotionaland other promotional
avenues.avenues.
39. Recommendations-Building EE Capacity
2. Continue programs that support the development of2. Continue programs that support the development of
state/provincial-level comprehensive EE programs.state/provincial-level comprehensive EE programs.
40. Recommendations-Building EE Capacity
3. Provide a program to develop sustainable state and3. Provide a program to develop sustainable state and
provincial EE associations.provincial EE associations.
41. Recommendations-Building EE Capacity
4. Target support to states interested in adoption of the4. Target support to states interested in adoption of the
Guidelines for Excellence, certification, materials review andGuidelines for Excellence, certification, materials review and
other strategic initiatives to build and professionalize theother strategic initiatives to build and professionalize the
field.field.
42. Example
Adoption of NAAEE Guidelines for Excellence
by the EE Association of Washington
October 22, 2005
The EEAW Board of Directors recognizes the importance of the
National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education and
the contributions it has made to environmental education as a
field and in the state of Washington. EEAW formally adopts the
Guidelines and commits to promoting them to members and
partners and to their use in the development and implementation
of organizational activities. The Board also recognizes the value
of integrating the national guidelines with the state guidelines
and standards for professional development to benefit all
educators, formal and nonformal alike, and commits to a process
of intentional alignment
43. Recommendations-Building EE Capacity
5. Develop a business plan and funding to launch aDevelop a business plan and funding to launch a
Leadership Clinic InstituteLeadership Clinic Institute.
44. Recommendations-Building EE Capacity
6. Prioritize funding, training and incentives for culturalPrioritize funding, training and incentives for cultural
competency and stakeholder collaborationcompetency and stakeholder collaboration.
48. THANKTHANK YOU!YOU!
FundingFunding: EETAP and U.S. EPA Office of EE: EETAP and U.S. EPA Office of EE
Survey Instrument DevelopmentSurvey Instrument Development: Abby Ruskey and: Abby Ruskey and
Rick Wilke with help from Tracie Beasley, Joe Heimlich,Rick Wilke with help from Tracie Beasley, Joe Heimlich,
Jeremy Higgins, Michelle Kirk, Gus Medina, BoraJeremy Higgins, Michelle Kirk, Gus Medina, Bora
Simmons and Michaela ZintSimmons and Michaela Zint
Online Survey ServicesOnline Survey Services: Paul Nowak and Nef Straub: Paul Nowak and Nef Straub
Data Crunchers and Chart MakersData Crunchers and Chart Makers: Amy Heart, Karin: Amy Heart, Karin
Kraft, Abby Ruskey, Nef Straub and Anna SullivanKraft, Abby Ruskey, Nef Straub and Anna Sullivan
49. Questions?Questions?
Thank YOUThank YOU audienceaudience
for your interest in, and commitment tofor your interest in, and commitment to
EE capacity buildingEE capacity building
Editor's Notes
This presentation is based on the Results of the Third survey on the Status of Environmental Education Programs at the State-Level, conducted in the fall of 2004-spring 2005.
The survey was conducted in late 2004-early 2005 by Abby Ruskey and Rick Wilke
Abby and Rick co-founded and co-directed the National Environmental Education Advancement Project (NEEAP) at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Rick, a distinguished professor of EE is now Project Director of EETAP. Abby is now the Executive Director of the EE Association of Washington and is Resource Faculty at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.
This is the third in a series of surveys conducted by the National Environmental Education Advancement Project.
The model of the Components of a State-Level Comprehensive Environmental Education Program was originally developed for the book “Promoting Environmental Education: How to Strengthen EE in Your State and Community” by Abigail M. Ruskey and Richard Wilke with 102 state and local EE leaders as contributors. This model originally included 16 components when it was first created in 1994. By the time of the 1998 survey there were 25 components. In addition in 1998, NEEAP began surveying for a) state EE association best practices, adding eight items in this category and b) EE legislation with one question item. By the time of the 2004 survey, there were 26 components, in addition to state EE association and legislation items.
This presentation reports on the results of the original 16 components of a state-level comprehensive EE program between 1994 and 2004. In addition, the results of the components survey for in 1998 and 2004 are compared with conclusions and recommendations.
This graph shows the increase in the number of components of comprehensive EE programs achieved between 1995-2004. In 1995, the NEEAP “wheel” of comprehensive components consisted of 16 program, structure, and funding components. By 1998, the wheel model had been “field tested” and members of the NAAEE EE Capacity Building Commission recommended the addition of new components such as “model schools”, “EE correlations, and “environmental literacy assessment”. Commission members also recommended specifying the various forms of educator instruction to better distinguish strategies to reach in-service educators, non-formal educators who train teachers, university faculty who train teachers and so on. Thus in 1998, 25 components of comprehensive EE programs were included in the survey. By 2004, state leaders and NAAEE had a certification initiative underway and this component was added to the survey. In addition, by 2004, the use of the Internet for state EE capacity was better understood than in 1998 and two related 1998 components were consolidated into one “comprehensive online database of state practitioners and resources”.
This graph of the number of components “developing” in states reflects the same upward trend as the previous graph of “in place” components.
This graph compares the original 16 components of state-level comprehensive EE programs. The decline in components achieved represented in 2004 is most likely the result of a more rigorous survey design and changes in funding and political support for EE that occurred between 1998 and 2004.
Survey design accuracy was questioned in 1998 because there was no mechanism for respondents to document their claims.
The 2004 Survey Design Team (seven researchers) grappled with this issue. They also considered additional components to survey for, and sub-items.
The “artifacts” column added into the 2004 survey provided a place for respondents to include evidence of the existence of an item checked as “in place” or “developing”. It also provides contact information, web links, and other references that can be used on NAAEE’s Capacity Building web page and beyond.
The 2004 survey included 26 quantitative questions about comprehensive EE programs, 11 of which had sub-items, a “drill down” to more specific information about the nature and extent of programs in place or developing.
In addition there were four questions about state EE associations with a total of six sub-items across the questions.
At the end of the survey we asked three open ended questions about the capacity building needs and services of most usefulness to state EE leader respondents.
The survey was designed to be taken online. Technical support to post the survey online and collect and report raw data results was provided by NAAEE’s Technology Services (NTS) department. Data was sorted by NTS and NEEAP staff and graphed by NEEAP staff and consultants. Data analysis, coding of qualitative results and reporting was conducted by Abby Ruskey with input from Rick Wilke and Gus Medina.
The population of survey respondents were state environmental education leaders identified through NAAEE’s listing of state EE association liaisons, EE specialists in state agencies (ranging from education to natural resources to environmental protection/ecology departments) from NEEAP’s database and state coordinator networks of Project Learning Tree, Project Water Education for Teachers (WET) and Project WILD. This listing of respondents was supplemented by names recommended by those above and/or key leaders in states in the NEEAP database that did not fit into the categories above. Examples include higher education representatives, representatives of professional associations and NGO’s other than state EE associations and other stakeholders.
A total of 348 EE leaders were contacted and provided with a listing of others from their state contacted and asked to coordinate their response for a single state response. A total of 82 surveys were submitted. In the case of 16 of the states, NEEAP found discrepancies in the data submitted from same states. EE leaders in these 16 states were contacted a second time, provided with the results from multiple respondents and asked to convene a discussion to eliminate discrepancies and then send in one survey.
This chart shows key Program Components of a Comprehensive State-Level Environmental Education Program. There is a steady increase in the number of “EE Master (Comprehensive EE) Plans”, “EE Learner Objectives”, and “EE Model Schools” in place across the 50 states. In addition, there is a significant jump from 19 to 37 states reporting “EE Correlations”. Please note the slight drop from 15 to 14 states with “K-12 EE Requirements”. All of these results will be discussed further in the next series of slides.
This slide depicts the 2004 results of the states developing the reported components of comprehensive state-level EE programs. Again, note the highest number reported (12) shows that activity to develop “EE Master Plans” has picked up considerably since 1998 and continues to be a key component. The next highest number of components being developed (6) is attributed to “EE Learner Objectives”, “EE Correlations” and “EE Model Schools”. Because of the evidence provided, we have a better idea of the reasons behind survey results and patterns. We can link progress to support and programs offered nationally and at the state level. For example, we can demonstrate that as a result of NEEAP’s state-level capacity building programs and because of cut-backs in state funding, EE leaders have joined forces to develop “EE Master Plans” that include public-private strategies and recommendations. Additionally, efforts to disseminate NAAEE’s Guidelines for Excellence between the period 1998-2004 are reflected in the number of states developing “EE Learner Objectives”.
Among the 23 states with “EE Learner Objectives”, 48% have adopted subject area specific EE learning objectives and 52% have adopted interdisciplinary objectives. Depending on the state, these may be referred to as “outcomes”, “benchmarks”, “learning requirements”, etc.. These frameworks assist educators in developing specific instruction plans and assessment strategies for incorporating EE in given subject areas or across the curriculum. They help to ensure instructional consistency and may be exit oriented or lesson oriented.
Drilling down one more level, we can see that most states have integrated some type of EE content into either or both science or social science subject areas. This graph helps us to see, that across the country, we have more work to do to integrate EE across the curriculum, but we’re off to a great start!
Let’s look again at the “EE Correlations” category. 37 states reported having EE correlations in place and 6 reported EE correlations being developed for a total of 42 states, almost the entire country. What has been correlated?
Clearly, there has been a concerted effort on the part of Project Learning Tree, Project WET and Project WILD to produce and disseminate documents that align or correlate state content standards with their curriculum. By far, these are the most widely correlated curricula across all 50 states. In some states, PLT, WET and WILD correlations are combined into one resource, a helpful tool for many purposes including coordinated in-service teacher training. The “other” category tells us that in all 50 states there are state and region-specific curriculum that are also correlated. Examples are “Florida Black Bear” in Florida, “K-12 Energy Education Program” in Wisconsin and “Xeroscape Curriculum” in New Mexico. Three states reported correlations of the “Leopold Education Project” (AR, KS, MO) and “Project Food, Land and People” (AZ, KY, TX).
This slide focuses our attention to “Educator Training Program” components. Educator training is one of the most important set of components to advance in the next 5-10 years if we are going to achieve environmental literacy. The are many excellent EE resources and programs available in the states and there is an increasing attention to quality control programs influenced by the NAAEE Guidelines for Excellence and other mechanisms. The graph shows that there is an upward trend in attention to “Training the Trainers of K-12 Educators”, “Training the Trainers of Nonformal Educators” and “Training the Trainers of University Faculty”. The decrease from 4 to 3 of states with “Required EE Training for Teacher Candidates” is due to one state (AR) reporting that even though a requirement is in place, it is note enforced. The drop from 30 to 18 states in the “Coordinated Inservice EE Training” is hopefully a result of a closer interpretation by respondents of the component description—“Teacher training that targets K-12 teachers and enables them to become fully competent to teach to all of the goals of EE.”—and not a reflection of an actual decrease in efforts of curriculum and training programs to coordinate their training efforts.
It is exciting to see that across all training components, there are states working to develop new programs. Of note are 5 states working on initiatives to make EE required training for teacher candidates and 11 states developing programs to train faculty other than teacher education faculty.
Assessment of environmental education, whether in the schools, or of the general adult public is a key component of Comprehensive State-Level EE Programs. This chart shows a drop in the number of states that have incorporated EE into existing assessment whether standardized, authentic/performance or otherwise. On the other hand, there is a growing number of states conducting “Environmental Literacy Assessments”, or the application of tests, survey’s and other assessment tools to determine whether or not K-12 students, college students, and the general public are actually synthesizing and applying environmental knowledge, values/attitudes, and skills that would qualify them as environmentally literate citizens.
2004 was the first year NEEAP surveyed for the component “EE Certification” as this is a new initiative on the state and national landscape.
Since 1998 there has been a decrease by 8 states of “EE Awards/Recognition” programs.
In terms of what states are gearing up to implement, “EE Certification” programs promise to double by the time of our next survey of the status of state-level EE programs. Additionally, “Environmental Literacy” programs are developing in 4 states, with 3 planning to include EE in existing assessments.
There was a reduction overall in the number of “Structure” components between 1998 and 2004. Of note is the increase in online database services, up from 11 to 21 states in this time period, a likely reflection of services offered through EETAP partners, in this case NAAEE. The number of EE Offices based in a state agency decreased overall by two between 1995 and 1998 and increased again by a factor of 3 in 2004. Between 1998 and 2004 we lost six EE Boards, six EE centers, seven interagency committees and eight state-wide EE newsletters across the country. The number of state EE associations also dropped by two (RI and LA reported having associations in 1998 and not having them in 2004. Decreases may be due to more accurate reporting in 2004. Further analysis of the data to determine which states lost components in addition to follow-up interviews with state leaders in these states would help us ascertain the loss of components and reasons for the losses.
Even though there were losses in structure components, by 2004 state EE stakeholders were on their way to creating these necessary elements of a comprehensive environmental education program. Note again the number of states developing online EE databases (13) and EE centers (8).
Between 1998 and 2004, there was an increase of three EE offices in state agencies across the 50 states for a total of 17 states with one or more offices of EE. This graph provides a deeper look at which agencies these offices are house in and the number of full and part time staff in place across the 50 states. The majority (31%) are housed in state departments of education, followed by state departments of natural resources and environmental protection (25% respectively). Fewer EE offices are in place at the level of the Governor (6%). The remaining offices are found in other agencies such as health, agriculture, and transportation.
The number of sources of public and private dollars has steadily increased since 1996.
There was an increase of six statewide EE Grants programs in place between 1996 and 1998 and a drop back to 21 in 2004. There was a also decrease between 1998 and 2004 in the number of states with interest-bearing trust fund accounts receiving public/private dollars to support EE programs. In 1998 KY, LA, MA, MD, PA, TX, WA and WI all reported having Trust Funds. By 2004 GA, NJ and WI were the only states reporting having this component in place.
The most common sources of EE Funding Sources reported include grants and donations, followed by general revenue, pollution fines, and specialty license plates. Two states (AL and MO) receive funding from a percentage of sales tax and one state receives funding for EE from lottery proceeds (MN). A few states receive a percentage of a forestry mill tax and several receive a percentage of proceeds from hunting and fishing licenses.
A corresponding number of states are developing EE Trust Funds as lost them between 1998 and 2004. However, the states are different with the exception of Washington. The states that reported development of EE Trust Funds include CA, KS, MN, VA and WA.
Only one state (OH) has over $1 million in funding per year for EE. WI has between $250,000 to $499,000. Six states have $100,000-224,999 (SD, PA, NE, MS, IA, GA). Sixteen states have less than $100,000 (AZ, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NV, NY, OK, UT, VA, WA).
Pass through grants programs are vital to a strong comprehensive state EE program. We need to work to see more states with the level of funding provided in Ohio. In it’s first year, the state of Washington’s $90,000 Partnership Fund for EE received applications totaling $950,000 (10 times the amount available). The clear demand by providers for pass through funding combined with public support for EE (gauged by the NEETF sponsored Roper-Starch and state surveys showing between 75-96% public support EE) makes the case for a significant increase in the number and level of state EE grant programs.
Of the 21 states that are offering grants programs, the majority (17 states) distributed between 1-25. Only two states provide more than 50 grants per year. One state provides between 51-75 (OH).
With the exception of California, the five states working to develop EE Trust Funds all have grants programs of $100,000 or less.
State EE leaders were asked to “indicate the existence of, and list any EE related legislation that currently, or once was enacted, in your state”. The chart shows the responses with 19 states indicating legislation “In Place”, 29 with no legislation in place, and 2 with legislation “Being Developed”.
The survey asked three open ended questions including the two above. Responses to the third question, “Is there any other support that national and/or regional organizations can provide to assist your ongoing state EE capacity building efforts?”, is covered in the final recommendations segment of this presentation.
State EE leaders recognized U.S. EPA’s Office of EE’s grants program and its National EE Training Program (EETAP) as the greatest source of funding available for EE capacity building. Outside funding was mentioned most often in the form of EETAP supported programs such as the EE 2000 and EETAP States Program and Leadership Clinics implemented by NEEAP, the EE Certification Program and funding for state EE conferences led by NAAEE, etc. There was also reference to EETAP funds passed through its partners Project WET, WILD, and PLT.
EPA Regional Offices were listed as second greatest source of funding support for development of components of a comprehensive EE program.
Wisconsin was the only state that listed an in-state funding source with guidelines geared to the development of components of comprehensive EE programs—through the Wisconsin EE Board grant program.
Examples of other funding sources geared to the development of comprehensive EE state-level EE programs listed by EE leaders included corporate (AZ), foundation (AK and WA), USFWS (NE), BLM and USDA Forest Service (NM).
These were the top three programs listed by respondents. Twenty seven state leaders responded that the North American Association for EE (NAAEE) is particularly helpful in supporting the development of the components of a comprehensive state-level EE program. Twenty states listed the National EE Advancement Project (NEEAP at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point) as particularly helpful and 15 listed the EETAP, which funds the lion’s share of NEEAP and NAAEE state capacity building programs. NEEAP’s Leadership Clinics and trainings and state capacity building programs and services (such as the EETAP States Program) were listed most often, followed by NAAEE’s EE guidelines publications and training and the pre-conference Affiliates Workshop.
In comparing responses to these two questions, one can see that many respondents mix up NAAEE, NEEAP, and EETAP in the state capacity building arena. For example 8 states listed EETAP/NEEAP state capacity building programs as a particularly helpful service, and 7 states listed NEEAP. Only 3 states listed EETAP separately.
Other agencies and organizations with services (other than funding) that were listed by respondents included the EPA’s Office of EE, Projects WET, Learning Tree and WILD, the State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER) and USFWS. Other organizations listed by three states included NAI, ASCE, Audubon, IAFWA, ANCA, Keep America Beautiful, Earth Force, Future Fisherman’s Foundation, National Shooting Sports Association, NWF, Sierra Club, and the BLM.
Other forms of resources particularly helpful in the development of the components of comprehensive EE programs included, state-level staff, EE associations, EE and nature centers, corporations and foundations, universities and colleges and museums/aquaria/zoos.
In many states, state agency EE specialists, are also state coordinators for Project Learning Tree, Project WILD and Project WET.
Respondents discussed the importance of cooperative efforts between agencies and between both public and private stakeholders.
We expect that there is more than one state that has support from museums/aquaria/zoos for the development of the components of state-level comprehensive EE programs. Nevertheless, this figure and the one for universities and colleges tells us that these institutions are yet to be fully tapped in the effort to strengthen EE programs.
1. Every time the survey has been conducted, the original 16 components of comprehensive programs identified in 1993 are included as a baseline for the purpose of longitudinal tracking. In addition, new components identified since the previous survey are added.
For the next (2008) survey, we will look into including state-level components addressing environmental education in communities and to business and higher education audiences (beyond teacher preparation) in addition to the Pre K-12 arena already covered by the existing model.
Project co-lead Abby Ruskey is coordinating a process in the state of Washington to expand the “wheel” model to include all possible state level EE components in the development of the state comprehensive EE plan. The Washington framework will be completed in 2006 and the comprehensive plan based on it will be completed in 2008.
2. In some cases, survey respondents did not list artifact information or provided a name of an individual from which to get artifact data. Future survey budgets should include funding for a researcher or assistant to follow-up and capture this data for all “in place” and “developing” components as well as to clear up any discrepancies that may exist in the data from multiple respondents.
3. With NEEAP closing it’s doors in 2005, EETAP will coordinate with former NEEAP staff and NAAEE to ensure that project results are made available.
As a result of NEEAPs Third Survey of the Status of Comprehensive Environmental Education Programs at the State-Level, the field of EE now has the baseline and longitudinal information from which to develop a national EE capacity building strategy which would result in the national infrastructure needed to support EE capacity at the state and local levels. Such a strategy should be aligned with the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.
Canada’s “Framework for Environmental Learning and Sustainability in Canada” and the “Hungarian Environmental Education Strategy are examples of national comprehensive EE plans. We recommend a review of other country’s models but identifying a process that is uniquely North American and which results in immediate, increased capacity.
Since education policy in the U.S. is typically largely relegated to the state and local levels, and given the grassroots nature of the EE field in the U.S., we recommend that the U.S. version also be fully informed by state and local-level plans and/or leaders.
When asked “What resources and/or services have been particularly helpful in supporting development of the components of a comprehensive EE program in your state?” state leaders overwhelmingly responded that they needed the support of an EE capacity building program. The following comments are a small sampling of qualitative input provided by state leaders in the 2004 survey.
“We have only just begun to scratch the surface of what is possible when we are mobilized with a plan and financing to provide it.” –IL
“COEEA lacks financial resources to take advantage of existing capacity building initiatives.”-CT
“Those of us with small bases must get out-of-state dollars if we are going to survive.”-ID
We recommend that another full-service program modeled after the EETAP States, EE 2000 and Demonstration States programs be fully funded and that it be developed utilizing the evaluation reports generated in 2000-2005 for NEEAP and EETAP. These programs must include a planning and plan implementation approach. As a result of the data for all 50 states from the 2004 survey, short and long term goals and measurable objectives and outputs with outcomes can and should be identified in states (and provinces) that will result environmental literacy and sustainability.
We also recommend that this program be extended north and south of the border given recent interest and initiatives in Canada and Mexico regarding comprehensive EE programs (and the use of the Leadership Clinic model).
To achieve our goal of environmental literacy, state and national EE associations should be no less than models of nonprofit management. Currently, the majority of EE associations have little or no staff, limited financial resources and ability to secure resources, high leadership turnover, and surprisingly few members relative to their potential individual and institutional membership. Under such conditions, EE associations cannot expect to provide the services, support, and political voice needed, work towards comprehensive EE programs, and increase environmental literacy.
We need EE association boards to step-up and take on the challenge of evolving organizationally to a new level of efficacy. We also need those with financial and organizational resources to support EE institution building initiatives as well as programmatic initiatives, starting with EE associations.
Our short-term recommendation is that the funding be developed to support a mentor-model program aimed at advancing 10-12 state/provincial EE associations to the level of activity found in states such as Colorado, Kansas and Utah.
NEEAP’s Third Survey of the Status of State-Level Comprehensive Environmental Education Programs provides comparative 1998 and 2004 data on the status of organizational best practices in and across each of the 46 state EE associations affiliated with NAAEE. These results, combined with longitudinal data collected by the NAAEE Affiliates Partnership about the perceived needs of state/provincial association leaders will be analyzed with specific rationale and recommendations for EE association development. The highly successful Affiliates Pre-conference Workshops held at the annual NAAEE conference are likely to be included in these recommendations. However, we would like to see more consistency of representation from state/provincial associations and an adequately funded program for follow-up support to associations in between the workshops for the investment to have greatest impact.
This recommendation is an area of focus within recommendations #1 and #3 above. NAAEE is targeting state and national level adoption of the Guidelines for Excellence. As of October 2005, two states (UT and WA-see example below) and two national organizations (NAAEE and PLT) had adopted the guidelines. More support is needed for encouraging as many state EE associations as possible to adopt the Guidelines and to also pursue related initiatives, primarily EE certification and EE materials review, which have been piloted in a handful of states.
State EE leaders also need strategic and financial support to coordinate with representatives of NAAEE who are working with the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). By 2008, NCATE should have EE Specialty Area Guidelines adopted and state EE leaders should prepare the resources and their teacher training institutions in advance.
NAAEE and state EE associations need additional funding to set up operations for these critical initiatives that will “raise all the ships” and the stature and impact of the EE profession as a whole.
A related area of need is information technology services for EE associations including web sites and online searchable EE directories.
As a result of this resolution, the EE Association of Washington has partnered with the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to create professional development guidelines that align the NAAEE Guidelines for Excellence with the state’s teacher professional development guidelines.
By a wide margin, the Leadership Clinic was the most often referenced resource mentioned when EE leaders were asked in an open ended question, “What resources and/or services have been particularly helpful in supporting development of the components of a comprehensive EE program in your state?” Those who have worked together to design, implement, attend and evaluate Leadership Clinics can attest to the value of this EE capacity building tool. Clinic designers will begin discussions in 2006 for development of a business plan and a funding strategy for a Leadership Clinic Institute. This institute will use the models, training modules, and many products developed through EETAP and take these to the next level of dissemination in service to the EE field and beyond.
Over the past 15 years, NEEAP has conducted research of state-level EE leaders in order to better understand their work and successes and to identify and address their needs. We have learned about which strategies work to strengthen EE programs and have developed models from these. We’ve learned about what state EE leaders need in order to be supported as leaders working within growing/changing organizations and external environments. Among the skills and predispositions that don’t necessarily come naturally, EE leaders need funding, training and incentives to be successful in working with diverse (culturally, professionally, regionally…) individual and organizational partners and within multi-stakeholder collaboratives. NEEAP’s 2005 report Steps toward Success: Lessons from the EETAP States Program provides an in-depth and personal look at the experiences of state EE leaders and makes an excellent case for this recommendation. The EETAP Diversity Cases workshops and related programs should receive more attention and funding w/in capacity building programs.
In recommendation #3, we stated the need for “…those with financial and organizational resources to support EE institution building initiatives as well as programmatic initiatives, starting with EE associations.” Relying entirely on volunteers will not sustain our organizations. EE associations need to be staffed, have offices and the organizational assessment and development plans and committee structures in place to fully serve the profession. We call on funders to help address this need. Additionally, we look to all institutions with a mission that includes EE to consider creating staff positions for the purpose of EE capacity building; people whose job responsibilities include strategically collaborating with others to strengthen the EE field locally and/or in their state or province.
State EE leaders report having great difficulty finding sources of in-state funds to support EE capacity building efforts. EE leaders in the states have benefited greatly from seed funding through state EE capacity building programs like the EETAP States Program as suggested in recommendation #2 and programs related to the Guidelines for Excellence such as certification as suggested in recommendation #4. State EE capacity building programs not only provide pass through funding that teams can use directly, but they underwrite services such as training in fundraising through Leadership Clinics and NAAEE pre-conference workshops.
State EE association leaders also highly value the conference grants program once funded by the U.S. EPA and administered through NAAEE. In addition, state leaders are interested in working with NAAEE and other national partners to pursue joint fundraising proposals for initiatives such as those described in recommendations #1-4 above. Finally, state level EE leaders are requesting technical support ranging from training in development, to lists of funding prospects and ideas for strategies and projects.
State EE leaders have asked for NAAEE to work with them to develop a common message or set of messages and outreach tools to promote environmental education. Also needed is support for marketing and communication services and staff within NAAEE and state EE associations to develop organizational brand strategies, graphic packages, messages, and tools (web sites, popular reports, press releases, etc.) needed to promote EE organizations and initiatives to target audiences.
We would like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Education for staff and funding support. NEEAP’s activities to strengthen EE at the state-level including this survey have been largely supported by the EETAP through a cooperative agreement with US EPA.
Huge thanks to all of those who helped us develop, administer, analyze, and report the 2004 survey.
